Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vladimir Berkov

Regulars
  • Posts

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Vladimir Berkov

  1. I am not sure where I talked about who would win between a theoretical military confrontation between the Chinese and the Greeks/Romans. My point was more that "best" is a rather subjective and multi-faceted determination when talking of ancient cultures, because it is the Greco-Roman tradition which led to our current Western Civilization. Obviously there were political, military and social advantages to the Greeks and Romans versus their enemies such as Persia. Still, the problem is that the civilizations listed in the poll are too spread out geographically and chronologically to make mere military power or social structure at a certain time relevant as the only factor. You have to analyze the civilization in comparison to others existing at the time, in its part of the world. And when you do so, the strong points of other civilizations, even the non-western ones, become evident.
  2. Some areas of law already address this where there is a contract but the contract doesn't specify a right to be free from noise. In leases, for instance, you have an implied "right of quiet enjoyment" of the premises. If you rent an apartment, and the landlord or another tenant starts pumping out the loud music at 3 AM you may have an enforceable legal right. Of course it is all contextual. If you rent an apartment next to a railroad track, you can't really complain that the train makes a lot of noise.
  3. I too think many of the objectivists on this board are on the wrong track concerning sex. I think this is a result of two things. 1.) Objectivists' reluctance to admit the strongly physical and instinctual nature of sex. 2.) Ayn Rands rather odd personal view of sex which is woven into her novels as well as her non-fiction.
  4. It is hard to say which is the "greatest." If you mean which was most influential to our current Western culture, then the Greeks and Romans are certainly at the top of the list. But if you mean military power, or extent of territory, or technological, social, architectural achievement however other civilizations particularly the Chinese rank equally with the Greco-Romans. We are simply biased in favor of the Greco-Roman civilizations because they are what heavily influenced out own societal structure. China was far in advance of the west in many respects, but eventually became too introverted and bureaucratic, meaning its influence and power lessened even as western power grew. If China had continued its technological expansion and sea explorations, we might have had much more of a respect for their accomplishments in the west. Other civilizations, like the Ancient Egyptians, simply fell too early to be an appreciable influence.
  5. I am not talking about education in which people learn the chemical functionality of medicines. I am talking about education in which people learn a respect for the scientific and medical PROCESS, ie the process of reason. In using a headache medicine, for instance, by going to a doctor and getting a prescription for a drug made by Merck, you are essentially showing that you trust and value the process that made that drug available. This includes the skill and education of the doctor, the process by which Merck creates drugs, the FDA approval and trial process, etc. You trust the doctor and drug company because of the assumption that they are making drugs in accordance with these safe processes. When you buy an herbal supplement from some unlicensed "herbal healer" with no medical degree or training, made by a company which does not need to do FDA trials or do any clinical trials at all, you essentially are trusting the herbal healer and remedy even though you know there is likely no scientific or medical basis for their efficacy.
  6. Where does he read this "90%" figure? Is it in a late-night infomercial? A published double-blind clinical study from John Hopkins? Why did he pick Tylenol over say, a traditional Chinese herbal remedy? And how does he know it works via repeated performance. The placebo effect is powerful enough to inspire the confidence of many in even the most absurd pseudo-drugs. My point is just that people aren't magically gifted with the education and discrimination required to choose products in a market (like food and drugs) in which direct contact with the product tells little or nothing about its safety or efficacy. The only way the populace can safely interact in these markets is once they a.) understand the difference between safe and unsafe, and b.) thus demand safe products and shun unsafe ones.
  7. It is only not a risk to you to the extent that effective alternatives are available and you know enough about the difference to be able to make informed choices. Basically in order for it not to be a risk to you, you must have a certain threshold amount of education and information. I am not interested in getting into some Randian debate over the semantics of the words "community" or "public." My point concerns real-world issues pertaining to the level and sophistication of food and drugs in a given nation. And my point is simply that without education, safe food and drugs will simply not be available on a consistant basis. I am not talking about NEA grants, federal highway fund withholding, warning labels, product bans on anything of the kind.
  8. My example isn't limited to disease, it is applicable to any issue in which there is large-scale ignorance which affects the quality of life or productivity of the community. Who said anything about self-interest? The risk of supplements, for instance is not limited to their chemical effect on the human body. Lots of money effort is wasted on them, money which could be used in more productive or useful pursuits. Also, in many cases people will use supplements thinking they are getting a benefit. Often people (especially the poor and uneducated) use supplements, herbal cures, faith healing, etc as an alternative to real medicine. That is a substantial threat to their health. I am not saying that these phony medicines need to be banned or that warning labels should be enforced. My only point is that proper education will eventually reduce their use and harmful effects. Consumer watchdog groups are already doing a lot on this front, like Consumer Reports.
  9. His summary was roughly what I was getting at. For the same reason that medical education should be encouraged when the public is ignorant about how to prevent the spread of disease. I never said provide facts. I am talking about a general educational trend towards more a more scientific view of food and drugs. I think this is a flawed question. Most "goals" are merely preludes to further goals. For instance, I have a goal to finish lawschool, but lawschool is just a means to the further goals of being a lawyer, getting a job, etc. Education should be encouraged by ANYONE who values living in a rational society. If you think education is unimportant, you are essentially saying that reason, science, technology, etc are unimportant.
  10. Because a rational populace is a prerequisite for having a civilized country. Education, for instance, is a large part of the purpose of ARI. Everybody has an interest in their neighbors being more reasonable, more scientificly-knowledgable and more discriminating. If a country's populace doesn't have these qualities, you end up like sub-Saharan Africa with their AIDS epidemic.
  11. Laszlo, Alcohol is actually a drug. Any drug when "consumed responsibly" will likely not put others at risk. The problem is that alcohol, like many drugs is often abused and that abuse is dangerous to the user as well as others. There really is no principled way to explain why alcohol is legal and other drugs like marijuana are not.
  12. I am saying that the whole question of regulation, torts, market sanctions, etc is essentially moot when the populace doesn't have an interest or demand for higher standards. This is why I think the essential goal should be education, not regulation.
  13. The problem with the food and drug industry in the 1900s was not simply the lack of regulation (although that certainly was one problem) there was also far less actual scientificand factual information about the subject. Added to this was the general ignorance of the public which meant that there was actually a demand for food and medicines which were not safe. The best modern analogy is with the vitamin and "supplement" market. You would think that with all we know about science and medicine there would not be a demand for these things, but instead it is a thriving industry. People spend money on and injest wierd substances with little or no scientific or medical basis for their effectiveness or even safety. This is why all attempts to curb dangerous products of any kind has to first be based on the populace having a certain level of knowledge and demanding certain standards of care. This is true of regulation, the tort system, and the market/advertising.
  14. I don't see how you can assert they are morally distinct in any way based on the hypothetical, however. Nowhere does it state one puts more effort into his activity than the other. Why does whether the yachtsman does anything matter? The quantitative result of "work" or even the quantity of jobs has never been held by any of the authors quoted to matter at all. It is all contextual to the person involved. Working 40 hours a week is no more intrinsicly moral than working 20 hours a week.
  15. Kendall, I still see a central problem here of definitions. Both the authors quoted and other posters here seem to have quite different conceptions of "work" and "productive." This is in part because these words have multiple acceptable definitions. To me, "work" as used in this context necessarily includes the element of monetary gain. Thus volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't work, although serving soup at a school cafeteria IS work. This seems to be the definition Peikoff uses, since he ties it to the idea of a "career." But it is far from clear why "work" in this sense is necessary to all men. Mankind must work, a man may not have to. This is the issue of the inherited fortune/retired man Peikoff mentions. I simply don't see how "productive work" (ie paying work or its equivilant) is the only solution to the requirement that a man needs a central purpose in life. For a man who has no need of money, any good central purpose or goal regardless of its productivity or remuneration would seem to be fine. Perhaps an example best illustrates my point, compare the following men: a.) A man with vast inherited wealth who is a champion and gifted yachtsman, winning sailing races around the world even though there is no monetary prize for winning. b.) A man who is the president of his own company who works hard and needs his paycheck, but enjoys the challenge and doesn't mind the effort at all. I don't see how one man is morally distinct from the other, even though by his statement Peikoff would seem to. Each has a purpose, each uses reason and each leads to self-esteem. The only difference is that one is "work" and the other a mere "recreational pursuit." It would seem that a better word than "work" would be something more akin to "activity."
  16. Kendall, I am afraid I don't see how your view of work is consistent. Perhaps it is because of your use of terminology which is confusing. You state that productivity concerns "earning," essentially relating it with a monetary gain. This is essentially what work is. Then you go on to state that a man with a proper view of his purpose would want to be productive (earn money) even though he had no need of money. You contrast such a man with the "idle rich" or "self-absorbed hobbyist" who you state are non-productive. What you have done is essentially state that a person should want to earn money even when they have no need of money. How can this be? Money cannot be a goal in an of itself because by definition it is only a means to an end. Money is only useful because of its purchasing power in purchasing useful or desireable things. Why should a man who has enough money to purchase anything he finds useful or desires "want and need" more money? I contend that a better view of purpose is simply the four factors you listed earlier in your post. This actually will include many of the "idle rich" and "self-absorbed hobbyists" you seem to distain. There is nothing less purposeful about a purposeful hobby rather than work. The only difference is that one involve remuneration and one does not. And as I said, remuneration alone cannot be a moral difference here.
  17. I agree, and I have had the same problem with Rand's conception of work myself. Ideally, for instance, it would be preferable to have a perfect melding of professional and personal interests. For instance, if your greatest and only love in the world is writing, and you are a successful writer, then you have the ideal and best job for you which you should devote all your energy to. However, most people have complications. For instance, they may have multiple discrete interests not easily combinable into one remunerative job. Or they may desire things in a job which a job based on their personal interests can't provide. Thus most people have to balance a work life with a personal life, and striking the proper balance between the two is often one of the biggest questions in that person's life. Simply put, most poeple are not Roark's, Dagny's or Reardon's in terms of their careers. While they may love their work, they also will likely have interests which compete with their career for their time and energy.
  18. I got my degree in philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin and think it has a great philosophy and classics department. If you are interested in ancient philosophy, there is a lot of cross-indexed courses involving classics, greek, latin and philosophy. Too, Professor White is a great ancient philosophy teacher who teaches small section courses on Aristotle which I greatly enjoyed.
  19. I will try to clarify my position in one post, from the responses it is clear that there is substantial misunderstanding about what my position actually is. I am not holding that only rights violations are immoral. Actions may be immoral yet not be a rights violation, for instance anything you do to yourself by definition cannot be a rights violation yet may be immoral. My position is largely evidentiary and not substantive. I don't have a position on the merits of bestiality as a moral or immoral practice. My argument is that since bestiality is a practice which cannot involve a rights violation and which does not involve a being which has rights, the only possible immorality would result from a harm the person does to themselves. This is the hardest area of immorality to judge, as it necessarily is context-dependant on the person and every person is unique and different. The only solution is to give a wide benefit of the doubt to any such practices in question. Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise. And the one thing this thread lacks is proof, evidence, support or anything of that kind. There are plenty of conclusions and assertions about the immorality of bestiality, but as I stated above, that is not enough. To say such behavior is immoral requires more than one's personal beliefs or whims.
  20. I never said that sex is soley a physical need. I said at its root, it is a physical need, which I think is beyond dispute. The desire for sex arises from the human body and brain. The specific implimentation of this desire, what a person finds most sexually attractive, what sexual relationships are chosen, etc have a big mental component. Still, you can't separate the mental aspect of sex from the physical.
  21. I don't see how my concept of morality at all allows all leverls of "depraved self-destruction." I simply stated that the showing required for proof that an act is self-destructive and thus immoral is much higher than the showing required to prove that an act harms others and is thus immoral. This is because usually the best judge of what is self-destructive is the person themself, not an outsider. For example, it would be foolish to state as a generality that "drinking is self-destructive and thus immoral" because each individual has his own tolerance level of alcohol, his own reasons for drinking, and his own value-heirarchy in which drinking is situated. For an alcoholic who can no longer control his urge for alcohol, drinking may very well be immoral. But for another man who merely enjoys the taste of beer or wine in moderation, it would be odd to say his enjoyment is immoral. Again, I am seeing plenty of assertions but no support for them. As I stated, the burden of proof to show something is generally self-destructive of individuals is high. Mere repetition of conclusions without analysis or support will not do. As for sex, I think that many here are confusing the mental issues of love with the physical issue of sex. Sex is at its root, a physical need. To say that satisfying a physical human need is immoral is to turn one's body against one's mind. There certainly are phychological problems some people have with sex, and bestiality may be one of them. But I don't think the mere wish for sex without a "reflection of values" is by itself immoral.
  22. I'll try to clarify what I said. Morality/immorality requires at least one being with rights to be involved. The showing required to prove that something somebody has done to themselves is immoral however, is very high. Generally things people do to themselves are no moral/immoral for the purposes of public policy or discussion. A person cannot violate their own rights. When two people are involved, then the showing is lowered as it involves what one person does to another, which then becomes important as a matter of public policy, as well as resulting in possible rights violations.
  23. Again, you are asking me to prove the converse of my argument and providing no support for your own. I am not asserting that bestiality is psychologically healthy. I am just saying that absent some strong argument and support, it is not de facto immoral as some here seem to believe. Generally, human activity which does not violate the rights of others is assumed to be moral absent some strong showing to the contrary. As such the burden is on those (such as you) who hold that bestiality is immoral to prove why this is the case, not on my to prove that bestiality is moral, healthy, etc. While perhaps not needing to rise to the level of an actual rights violation, all immoral behavior has to involve at minimum another being which has rights. I don't think anybody here asserted anything of the sort regarding bestiality. I would think that the practicers of bestiality DO get a benefit from it, at least in their mind. People don't usually do things which they don't believe is a benefit to them in some way. I think you are working from a false assumption about the purpose and value of sex.
×
×
  • Create New...